No, they're paying $10K so they don't have to risk a potential larger fine. They're also giving up their right to a hearing and appeal, the ultimate result of which potentially could be zero fine - but then they'd still be on the hook for tens, possibly scores, of thousands of dollars in additional legal fees, no matter what the outcome.

It's not even analogous to a plea bargain, for in a plea bargain, there is a guilty plea to something. Here, by contrast, there is no admission of wrongdoing.

With all due respect, an FAA complaint speaks for itself no less, but no more, than a DA's complaint in a criminal case.

Also: I don't think it serves the sport well to see 2 competing DZs catfight in public.

I don't think it serves the industry well for the players and the leaders like USPA, to continue to turn a blind eye to these types violations. Many people know it's going on and look the other way, then there is the morons riding the bandwagon who will support the operators, most blindly, cuz good old "bubba" or "the Boss" would never endanger anyone, hell their kids fly on those planes......

Yea, Jim Barrons kids were in his beech when it crashed.

Let me guess.... this King Air in question come out of NC? If it did, it's just another hunk of shit in a long list of hunk of shit KA's owned and operated by the same "industry leader" across the country for years.

Just look at how many stupid fucks jump to defend the most well know shady operators in the biz.

Hi, J. Ask your kid the lawyer. A nolo plea, while not an admission, still results in a record conviction in the context of criminal law only. A nolo plea (unlike a guilty plea) simply cannot be used as evidence of an "admission" in the event of a civil lawsuit. This case is even something a bit different than a nolo contendre plea.

As I said above, I don't dispute the sensibility of, for example, Stratostar's points. It's just that my own personal muscle memory tends to instinctively twitch whenever people seem to equate an accusation with a conviction.

No one is getting fined. There has been a complaint lodged against ALLEGING misconduct.

Innocent until proven guilty. Or so I have been taught.

I never understand the "alleged," part of the aviation fines. I mean, I know legally what it means/implies, but theoretically you have to think: either they screwed the pooch or they didn't. It's pretty cut and dry when the local inspector pays a visit and finds concrete evidence that you neglected your aircraft mx, or missed a check that was supposed to be done per latest circular or directive, or anything else that is so clear cut; either it did or didn't happen.

Each time this happens, it's just raising more eye brows in the FAA. Mr. Inspector from the local FSDO will be watching more closely, which is OK for those that are crossing their t's and dotting their i's like they should (which should be EVERYBODY, but obviously it isn't), but they'll also be keeping an eye on the sport more as a whole, and they're going to be swift when the littlest thing comes up on their radar.

Well, no-- I said I know what it really means/implies. But, there are some things, even know they are called "alleged," until due process, that are pretty cut and dry. FSDO is going to show up, and either you maintained your airplane or you didn't. If I got a ticket for 'allegedly' running a red light, it doesn't mean I didn't run the red light, it just means I haven't conceded that I ran the red light yet or tried to prove otherwise and failed. Get what I'm saying?

The point I'm making is that there has been an awful lot of hiding behind the 'alleged' word. Some people even claiming that the FAA is out to get said DZ in trouble, they are innocent, and they harp on the 'alleged' part of everything. This isn't just in regards to this case. I've seen it brought up very quickly in the past few incidences similar to this one too.

If I got a ticket for 'allegedly' running a red light, it doesn't mean I didn't run the red light, it just means I haven't conceded that I ran the red light yet or tried to prove otherwise and failed. Get what I'm saying?

I get that you just don't get it; and I'm not going to explain it a fifth time.

If I got a ticket for 'allegedly' running a red light, it doesn't mean I didn't run the red light, it just means I haven't conceded that I ran the red light yet or tried to prove otherwise and failed. Get what I'm saying?

I get that you just don't get it; and I'm not going to explain it a fifth time.

And obviously you don't get what I'm trying to say, so we'll just leave it at that.

If I got a ticket for 'allegedly' running a red light, it doesn't mean I didn't run the red light, it just means I haven't conceded that I ran the red light yet or tried to prove otherwise and failed. Get what I'm saying?

I get that you just don't get it; and I'm not going to explain it a fifth time.

And obviously you don't get what I'm trying to say, so we'll just leave it at that.

I get precisely what you're saying. I've seen it all my career. It's precisely the thought process that, ideally, should disqualify a person from sitting on a jury.

What two competing DZs are catfighting? Chad hasn't even jumped in over six months due to a broken back, and it's going to be another six before he's cleared to jump. He can no longer work at any DZ. No other DZ was mentioned in the article that I saw.

CHAMBERSBURG — The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced Wednesday the settlement of a federal lawsuit against Chambersburg Skydiving Center Inc. filed as a result of an inquiry by the Federal Aviation Administration.

According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, the civil complaint, filed on Nov. 7, 2012, claimed that Chambersburg Skydiving Center Inc. operated an aircraft in violation of the federal aviation regulations by failing to have it inspected, by failing to have annual inspections and operating the aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Chambersburg Skydiving Center Inc. will pay $10,000 and agreed to cooperate with the FAA for inspections and investigations concerning compliance with federal aviation regulations.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and Chambersburg Skydiving Center Inc. agreed that the terms of the settlement were appropriate in light of the Chambersburg Skydiving Center’s status as a small business with limited financial resources and its record of no prior violations, according to a press release. Additionally, Chambersburg Skydiving Center Inc. took measures to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft once it became aware of violations.

The company is currently compliant with the FAA’s requirements and has agreed to cooperate with any future inspection or investigation by the FAA.

The settlement agreement is subject to the approval of U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones, III, the judge to whom the case is assigned.

It's pretty cut and dry when the local inspector pays a visit and finds concrete evidence that you neglected your aircraft mx, or missed a check that was supposed to be done per latest circular or directive, or anything else that is so clear cut; either it did or didn't happen.

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire - which I sometimes do when I'm bored: It's not always that clear-cut. e.g. Local inspector visits local dz on a rainy day when the airplane is not in use. Inspector asks to see aircraft maintenance records. DZ mgr says they're in the airplane. Local inspector looks and finds no such records. He cites the DZ for violation. Later in the day, airplane owner returns from local Kinko's where he was making copies of records for safe-keeping. Now the process begins. It's hard to draw correct conclusions without knowing the relevant facts.